This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Not sure what you're saying. He's had about 100% more filibusters to contend with than the next closest president. He's also had to contend with a highly polarized minority that is generally more concerned with defeating him than it is with helping the country. Partisanship has always been a factor in our system, but it's far more prevalent today than it has been in my memory.

When one party is in a greater minority, that meaning they have less power with straight up-or-down votes, you will see them resort to more procedural opportunities to gain influence. At the same time, the majority is also in a position to halt such procedures. Further, if the majority, in its zeal, attempts to railroad the minority too much, you will see more push-back by any means available.

With their majorities, it is the opinion of many that the Dems ran roughshod over the minority quite a bit. I also do not care to get into a "yes they did, no they didn't" tit for tat, as we've already had enough 'because I say so" in this thread.

In the end, IMMHO, we are still a country, and a Government, of laws, and that was violated with this move. What we see in this thread, by the uninformed, is this demand to "show me the Law broken". What those folks fail to grasp is that at the highest levels of government, there are not simple statutes that govern. On issues such as Executive privilege, advise and consent, etc., what the highest levels have done is create their own in-House rules, based on the allowances provided by the Constitution, and which hope to maintain the template for functional government within contentious politics. The violation of those rules is what is known as "going nuclear", that is to blow them up.

Obama clearly went nuclear, solely to gain a short-term political advantage. I believe that you understand that he did something never done before. He has trashed the system solely for his own hopeful political gain. To those who see this as a "win", its a pyrrhic victory. Government just got more feckless and reckless.

Obama clearly went nuclear, solely to gain a short-term political advantage. I believe that you understand that he did something never done before. He has trashed the system solely for his own hopeful political gain. To those who see this as a "win", its a pyrrhic victory. Government just got more feckless and reckless.

I'm sorry but when you have a system where you claim the senate is in session with only one person, one gavel, and 40 seconds, that system NEEDS to be trashed. My hope is that this will go to the courts and within that process there will be CLEARLY defined rules of how a senate can be considered "in session".

See I don't look at this as a victory for Obama, I look at this as a victory to prevent parlor tricks from happening and if a senate wants to be "in session" they will have to have clearly defined rules to be "in session" . No more parlor tricks.

When one party is in a greater minority, that meaning they have less power with straight up-or-down votes, you will see them resort to more procedural opportunities to gain influence. At the same time, the majority is also in a position to halt such procedures. Further, if the majority, in its zeal, attempts to railroad the minority too much, you will see more push-back by any means available.

With their majorities, it is the opinion of many that the Dems ran roughshod over the minority quite a bit. I also do not care to get into a "yes they did, no they didn't" tit for tat, as we've already had enough 'because I say so" in this thread.

In the end, IMMHO, we are still a country, and a Government, of laws, and that was violated with this move. What we see in this thread, by the uninformed, is this demand to "show me the Law broken". What those folks fail to grasp is that at the highest levels of government, there are not simple statutes that govern. On issues such as Executive privilege, advise and consent, etc., what the highest levels have done is create their own in-House rules, based on the allowances provided by the Constitution, and which hope to maintain the template for functional government within contentious politics. The violation of those rules is what is known as "going nuclear", that is to blow them up.

Obama clearly went nuclear, solely to gain a short-term political advantage. I believe that you understand that he did something never done before. He has trashed the system solely for his own hopeful political gain. To those who see this as a "win", its a pyrrhic victory. Government just got more feckless and reckless.

He did something that was unusual, but not unprecedented, and he did it in response to absolutely unprecedented resistance that was raised for an improper purpose. I applaud him for it. And you make the typical conservative assumption that it was done "for political purposes." Completely lost -- absolutely not present -- in your analysis, is the fact that Republicans have been blocking the creation of a CONSUMER PROTECTION agency that is badly needed, and that was devised in response to a major flaw in our financial system that helped bring about the worse recession since WWII. Obama's purpose is to help Americans. The Republicans' interest is to defeat Obama, period.

He did something that was unusual, but not unprecedented, and he did it in response to absolutely unprecedented resistance that was raised for an improper purpose. I applaud him for it. And you make the typical conservative assumption that it was done "for political purposes." Completely lost -- absolutely not present -- in your analysis, is the fact that Republicans have been blocking the creation of a CONSUMER PROTECTION agency that is badly needed, and that was devised in response to a major flaw in our financial system that helped bring about the worse recession since WWII. Obama's purpose is to help Americans. The Republicans' interest is to defeat Obama, period.

It is unprecedented. Show me otherwise. There have been numerous links in this thread all explaining exactly what precedent was, and was not.

If you do not want to agree with how I see it, then fine. But again, links were provided, some by me, that explain that opinion that Obama acted on politics, while trashing principle. Agree or disagree all you want, it is you who have felt that it is OK to violate the prinicple and protocols, to go "nuclear", in order to achieve a political end. Obama did not have the political clout to work within the normal process. So he trashed it. Sorry, but that is not a tactic that I have ever endorsed, by any President, or Legislator, in any party.

Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Originally Posted by jackalope

Woulda recognized your speech patterns anywhere

Even without the bunny butt .... prolly same thing you are

I think the forearms on your jackeloupe are too short. When you track them, they leave front footprints. Hard to bring down. Shoot them with a .22 cal and they keep right on truckin'. Not a lot of them here in NY. The yeti feed on them. Keeps the infestation to a minimum. Most o' the people here, think Republicants, are scared crapless of them, but they do loves Sarah Palin, go figure.

Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

From the constitution, just as the president derives the power to make appointments without congressional approval.

The in recess appointments is a stipulation that prevents government shut down, it does not eliminate the power of congress to approve appointments.

Sorry, you're mistaken. Recess appts are not subject to confirmation. They are good until the end of the next full session of Congress, and then expire, unless the Pres nominates them to continue in the post, and the Senate confirms.

Tiki Bar! Woot!
Drinks are plenty, music is fine, and the company is first-rate

Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Originally Posted by DaveFagan

I think the forearms on your jackeloupe are too short. When you track them, they leave front footprints. Hard to bring down. Shoot them with a .22 cal and they keep right on truckin'. Not a lot of them here in NY. The yeti feed on them. Keeps the infestation to a minimum. Most o' the people here, think Republicants, are scared crapless of them, but they do loves Sarah Palin, go figure.

Tiki Bar! Woot!
Drinks are plenty, music is fine, and the company is first-rate

It is unprecedented. Show me otherwise. There have been numerous links in this thread all explaining exactly what precedent was, and was not.

If you do not want to agree with how I see it, then fine. But again, links were provided, some by me, that explain that opinion that Obama acted on politics, while trashing principle. Agree or disagree all you want, it is you who have felt that it is OK to violate the prinicple and protocols, to go "nuclear", in order to achieve a political end. Obama did not have the political clout to work within the normal process. So he trashed it. Sorry, but that is not a tactic that I have ever endorsed, by any President, or Legislator, in any party.

Constitutionally, Obama did nothing illegal. Was it kosher? Nope. He violated a long-standing gentleman's agreement, but when the other side are not being gentlemen, I don't see how you should also be. The GOP took off the gloves the minutes Obama took office. Now Obama has a backbone, and Republicans are crying, just like the schoolyard bully who goes crying home to mommy after someone finally fights back and bloodies his nose.

Re: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks

Even though recess appointments are specifically mentioned in the constitution?

recess appointment is specifically for those times when Congress can not con-vein or in the case of emergency (as I listed before) It was not intended to be used as an end around Congress.

Actually it says “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate" Those positions did not happen during the recess, they were vacant long before the Senate recessed.

Last edited by Imnukingfutz; 01-05-12 at 03:11 PM.

Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.